this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
743 points (92.7% liked)

Science Memes

16675 readers
2158 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Also people are fish. You can’t evolve out of your clade.

[–] abir_v@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Hank Green went off about this recently. "Fish" just has no scientific meaning, and there are fish tetrapods.

I don't necessarily disagree, but ultimately there is a problem in classifying "fish" in the modern scientific taxonomy system - it has no good phylum to fit in as its a term that's a bit more broad than that, but not broad enough to make for a kingdom.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Sure, but isn’t the point that what we’d call ‘fish’ back when everything lived in the oceans, like pre-Devonian, the ancestors of all modern life?

We can’t out-evolve our clade, so all land animals are fish? And also we’re all amphibians, and everything directly leading to us? Insects, plants, and fungi are separate, but we’re technically fish?

Or am i misunderstanding that?

(e: if there are no ‘fish tetrapods’, where did tetrapods come from?)

[–] abir_v@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not really arguing for or against the word fish technically fitting all land animals. I think that using it that way showcases the problem of trying to fit common terminology like "fish" into the scientific taxonomic system. The definition of fish has no use in that context.

Also, there are fish which are also arguably tetrapods https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcopterygii

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

That’s fair. Honestly, all of taxonomy is just lines we draw, and all of evolution is really a fuzzy gradient. We can’t even figure out where the line for ‘human’ begins, because that’s also a meaningless term, really.

So the fact that we’re fish is as meaningful (or meaningless) as the fact that we’re human.

(And thanks for the link! That’s a cool, uh, ‘fish’.)

[–] abir_v@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, this is the distinction I'm trying to draw between "common" and "scientific" terminology. Scientific taxonomy is based on evolutionary history, rather than just superficial traits like "has gills, fins, and lives mostly in water."